Gays In Military?

Yes: Military Bigotry Against Gays Is Wrong

January 13, 1992|By Colbert I. King Washington Post

On Dec. 9, U.S. District Judge Oliver Gasch issued a decision to uphold the Navy's right to expel a gay midshipman from the U.S. Naval Academy.

The midshipman, who was within months of graduation, had done nothing wrong, had made no sexual advances on anyone or otherwise offended. He simply admitted he was gay to a classmate. His offense was being something that the majority was not.

The mere status of being homosexual is regarded as enough to warrant banning from the military. This is wrong. The treatment of gays by the military keeps company with racism. The Defense Department's policy on gays approves the subordination of men and women, not on the basis of their ability to perform as sailors, soldiers, Marines or in the Air Force, but solely because of an invidious distinction - their sexual orientation.

Fifty years ago, it was skin color that allowed the military to ''lawfully'' mark certain Americans as fair game for contemptible treatment and exclusion. Today's policy allows the military to cater to prejudice against gays, as illustrated by the midshipman's forced resignation.

The record was clear that the young man whose diploma was snatched was in excellent standing. He was within months of finishing the academy in the top 10 percent of his class. He was on tap for a prestigious postgraduate assignment on a nuclear submarine. His talents as a singer enabled him to sing the national anthem before the Army-Navy game on nationwide TV in his senior year. Nothing that he did at the academy set him apart from his classmates except his superior talents. Once he admitted he was gay, however, he became unfit to associate with his classmates.

And if the Defense Department regulations weren't

bad enough, comes now Gasch's ruling, which took traditional legal thinking beyond the pale through his introduction of an extraordinary rationale for the military's ban on gays. The exclusion of homosexuals by the Defense Department is also justified, the judge asserts, because it is directed against the spread of AIDS. The military has never asserted any such thing.

The armed forces guard against AIDS by testing prospective recruits for the human immunodeficiency virus or by medically discharging those on active duty who are found to be too sick to serve.

Contrary to the judge's thinking, even the military has shied away from the morally offensive act of stigmatizing an entire group because of the experience of some. That this judge would come out of left field with his own off-the-wall arguments really should come as no surprise. After all, the 85-year-old judge may have telegraphed his punch during the hearing by his reference to the midshipman and other gays as ''homos.'' This case most certainly will be appealed, and if there is any justice, a higher court will find that the ban on gays offends the Constitution.

The Defense Department shouldn't wait around for that to happen. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Colin Powell, ought to be leading the charge to eliminate the military's bigotry against gays.

Fifty years ago, the armed forces' conventional wisdom as reflected in the General Board memo said: ''If Negroes are recruited for general service, it can be said at once that few will obtain advancement to petty officer. With every desire to be fair, officers and leading petty officers in general will not recommend Negroes for promotion to positions of authority over white men.''